The feature is based on the bands or artists most discussed in the Forums, as far as I've been able to understand - so, there's no chance to see the likes of Rush or Yes disappear, I'm afraid.

You know, Pablo, I really couldn't care less about that feature, so it's not surprising I got it wrong!

Yes, let's hide the general populace's preferences for their own good.
Instead, let's promote our own enlightened opinions.
Tell you what, I'll go first. When I'm done listing these top 40 bands, I'll ask another collab to do the same.
Wait, how do I know that the properly obscure or deserving bands will get the attention they need ?

Logan wrote: Let's remove the popular "hot artists" from the list and make it "lukewarm artists".  But I want less popular still... Make it  "Artists in need of thawing". Seriously, how would we go about deciding which artists are too popular for the list?  That would be very contentious, seem/ be quite unfair, and make a "hot list" kind of wrong/ misrepresentative on its terms. The terms could change, but then it wouldn't serve the same function it was implemented for.  It's a bit like removing the top twenty albums from the "Most popular albums list" to give the lower ranked ones more exposure. In this case, I think the feature is better as it is, but that's just my opinion.  Actually, there are some other changes I think would work... and it can always be tweaked

Don't you find it obvious? Rush, Yes, ELP, DT, etc, those have NEVER left the list! It's pretty annoying to see those bands everytime, while the lesser-known bands are shadowed by them in the list.

Well, I had thought more support for this 'change', seems not...

Pablo, a qualm I have with the feature is the name, "Hot artists".  I might rather see it called "Most searched artists" or something like that (was it called that before?) as it's clearer how the artists are selected, and it doesn't sound like a Top 40 Pop artist list.  Although I find "hot artists" rather humorous.  My problems with blacklisting select artists from the list is that it will not be truly representative of the most searched (therefore defeating the purpose), it will irk people that we have opted to exclude some, and would cause confusion unless specified (people might even try to search, search, search, say Dream Theater trying to get it on the list, and then enlist others toi do the same if they didn't know that it was excluded, and if they did know they might consider it unfair).

 Imagine the reaction if we explicitly state: "Most searched artists minus [certain popular ones ] Rush, Dream Theater, Genesis, Yes etc." or say "Hot Artists minus Rush, Dream Theater etc."  We excluded them from the most searched feature because they don't need the exposure, and since so many people search for them anyway, they don't need mentioning in the most searched feature.  It defeats the purpose of the feature to exclude bands (that is seeing which is being searched for the most).  

Indeed, it's a stats things, not a fetaure that should involve such judgement.  It's for seeing what bands people are checking out, and of course, probably meant to appeal to the majority who are the people who are checking out those bands,  It's nice for them too see that they played a part in making something hot, and would be upsetting to some of them if they thought that what they searched for and cared about didn't count  (at least in regards to the feature cause their searches for those excluded bands aren't accounted for).

M@X could, also, make it so the top twentymost searched for artists don't make it, but I see that as manipulative, and potentially misleading for a hot list.  Or he could disable searching for certian artists altogether, and then one could honestly say that the hot list is accurate based on searches.  Of course he wouldn't do that.

If you're starting to dig in to a new interest, I say that you're going to start with the basics, the most important or valuable info.
Thus, for PA , that means that a neophyte prog listener is going to want to start with groups you deem overexposed.
And yes, if you're just beginning to read about Roman History, Julius Caesar is a great place to start. After all,  Belisarius' heroics involve re-conquering previously held roman territory. Seems evident that it would be important to know what that is or was to understand the whole story.
Thus with prog. If you start with Yes, DT, VDGG , Gentle Giant, Genesis, Floyd, Crimson or others, you're able to understand reviews and comparisons that use these iconic "signposts" for reference. Not that all reviews do, but a description has to start somewhere. And frankly, using relatively unknown band as your guide is rather hard unless you happen to know them.
You don't see PA describing Deep Purple as sounding like Night Sun, do you ?

NOW HERE GOES ANOTHER THING - no one (newbies or veterans) is under any pressure nor duress to avoid going for the obscurities from the get go.
Again, you now know all the other means that PA has to give lesser known acts some attention.
If that is insufficient, then again, I ask you  - what is really the problem ? Or yours ? (with having Yes, DT et al given more coverage)